[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On May 14, 2005, at 14:15, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
> To assess whether this rationale for XML 1.1 make practical sense, it
> would seem natural to observe whether people are actually using to
> non-ASCII possibilities of XML 1.0. If research shows that the
> non-ASCII possibilities provided by even XML 1.0 are not actually used
> to a significant extent, why bother with breaking interoperability by
> extending the non-ASCII features?
Because XML set the agenda: it has lead, not followed. XML went Unicode,
so Perl followed, for example. XML 1.1 does not indeed solve enough issues
that are relevant to most people to get adopted by grassroots demand: it
will gradually creep through the infrastructure and be available for the
people who need it (or, at least, other standards will be amended to cope
with the 1.1 changes, and therefore be ready for XML 2.0 when it comes out
in 2010.)
I believe Murata-san found a very high percentage of Japanese XML
documents on the web used non-ASCII in markup. (Was it 60%?)
> Writing Finnish and programming punctuation (;{}[]<>/\=) at the same
> time is inconvenient given the usual input methods. I'd imagine the
> inconvenience with non-Latin writing to be even greater.
One of the most popular keyboard input methods in China and Japan is to
type a two-letter syllable, then select from the MRU list that popsup.
This only uses alphabetics for data entry. It sounds like Finnish people
doing markup are not well served by current keyboards or keyboard
mappings.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
